8th Edition: Controversial Rules and Mechanics,

[Gentlemanloser]

Psykers wouldn't need any work. They cast. If they peril they take mortal wounds. If it kills them, everyone in range also takes mortal wounds as normal.

 

 

Schlitzaf, how's this for a simple, concise list of units that can be joined.

 

"Characters with a wound statistic of less than 10 and who do not have the vehicle keyword who end the movement phase in coherency with a friendly unit that does not contain the character keyword and has a minimum unit size of more than 1."

 

No joining LR or Razors. And Chaplain Dreads can't join units.

 

Any cases i might have missed?

[Schlitzaf]

I’m pretty sure he is referring to targeted buffs like the BA Warp Time or actual Warp Time. And if you didn’t want Chaplains Dreadnoughts and the like to be able to join squads that would I think cover all cases. Through why would monsters like Old One Eye be able to join while Chaplain Dreadnoughts couldn’t?

[Servant of Dante]

You would also need a restriction that a character can only join 1 unit at a time, and since you’re removing the Character keyword you need a special explaination for how they get it back if they leave the unit.

 

I don’t know, characters have auras, so you’re still going to have, say, 1 captain buffing 2 tactical squads. With this now you have to pick one of the 2 for him to join even if he stands right between them. That doesn’t feel any less weird or gamey to me than the current system.

 

Again, I think we all agree it can be done, but I’m more interested in why exactly this change would significantly improve the game, enough to justify having to deal with all these restrictions and exceptions.

[Gentlemanloser]

Others have said it would take pages of rules. I've nearly got it covered in a paragraph.

 

This would clear up the targeting issues and remove HI.

 

I've got no issues with multiple characters joining a single unit. They still buff multiple units.

 

Don't think threes a problem with time warp or gate. You can still only cast it once so pray your opponent doesn't use anything to scupper that cast. And enjoy the fact you get a little more out of it.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Gentlemanloser

[Schlitzaf]

Gentle your forgetting we talked about wound allocations, tactics, keywords and etc. Don’t forget to add all of those to that. It’ll make it well above a single paragraph your looking atleast a page. Because you need a diagram too. Likely two diagrams.

 

Once we have the that idea ironed out fully and completely (complete with the wound allocation and all the random niche’s we discussed or explained). We have a rule we can discuss and use as a semi-basis to compare to 8th current rules

Edited December 18, 2017 by Schlitzaf

[Gentlemanloser]

Yeah was bed time. And am in way to work. Not had chance to add the line about wound allocation in yet. But i will.

 

That didn't bring up any issues so shouldn't be a problem anyway.

 

All the chapter tactic stuff is really the last thing to address. Do they stack? Does only the units apply?

 

Which way would you lean?

Edited December 18, 2017 by Gentlemanloser

[Charlo]

1) Characters need to be able to join units for the purposes of charging. As a BA player (and the army with the most Aura buffs to juggle and potentially fall into) it feels particularly crappy when you land a unit and their boss only to have the unit reach combat and leave their buffing boss behind. Now before people shout "oh but that's unfair, now the character gets a free pass into combat." remember that the characters can arrive with shooting units too and buff their power without having to pass a charge roll, not to mention the meta of 8th in general means combat is not in vogue. Could even be a variation on the Heroic Intervention rule:

 

Lead the charge!

Armies are lead by heroic individuals that are always found where the fighting is thickest, lending their aid and inspiring their comrades to even greater acts of heroism.

 

If a friendly unit within 6" of a friendly character successfully charges an enemy unit, the character may immediately move up to their maximum move distance to the closest enemy model in that unit so that they reach base to base contact. If they cannot reach an enemy model with their maximum move then they may not Lead the Charge.

 

[Wargamer]

6“ is too much. 3" at most, and one character per unit. If you want to get all your heroes in, you should either be mass charging or they can charge under their own steam.

[40Kcollector]

characters losing their keyword upon joining a squad, couldn’t 1 then say that Squad has no characters in it and stack more in? What about creating a strategem where you spend a command point, instead of trying to recreate the wheel, say for 2 CP a character may join any squad within 6” for a turn. That way a player is really only creating a deathstar when they need it and not for the whole game.

[Charlo]

3" doesn't work though as then your hero wouldn't often be within range if you successfully charged.

 

For the record I think the base 3" is too small anyway, and it should be something like 6" minimum, or half M value if you want to be fluffy.

[Wargamer]

1) Declare charge with a unit.

2) Resolve Overwatch.

3) Roll charge distance.

4) If the charge is successful, nominated one character within 3" of the unit - that character's charge distance is considered to be 12" if charging the same unit as the initial unit.

 

See? You don't need a massive aura.

[chapter master 454]

As I said within my post in the thread that spawned this one: It is for clarity and simplicity.

 

Others have already mentioned this point multiple times but lets view this from explaining it in rules shall we. Lets discuss how much space on a page it would take to successfully and fully explain a character with various approaches. The point of this exercise is to demonstrate points being forwarded and debated. I stand firmly in that the current rules for characters (that is they do not join units) is the better rule set however lets talk about how much time it takes to explain them.

 

On this case, characters are a sub-type of infantry mostly with some exceptions. There are vehicle characters such as cronus and longstrike while there are various monstrous characters but for the most part those are excluded due to most having a wound characteristic of =>10 (but again there within there are some that are monstrous who have less than 10 so we will address that as well).

 

So without further ado I will present my section that would theoretically appear in a rule book regarding characters in favour of the current system. In return I would like to see a response to this where you will explain the rules with characters being able to join units. Note: you must be able to CLEARLY explain your rules fully and with no need for questions to be asked regarding them (or minimal amounts of questions). From there then the objective is to have the shortest section possible that has characters function fully.

 

"Characters are a type of unit that most armies will have. These units are singular models that represent a mighty figure of the faction that range from clever commanders to powerful psykers. These models act as their appropriate unit type and factions as detailed on their data sheet for all rule purposes with a few exceptions. Characters who are not monstrous or vehicles with a wound characteristic of less than 10 cannot be targeted unless they are the closest visible target. On top of this they have a few special rules that let them join into close combat as many leaders lead their men into battle. If a unit is charged and a character is within 3" of the unit, the character may, once all other charges have been resolved, move up to 3" to attempt to engage an enemy model. This rule is known as "Heroic Intervention". Characters are also known to lead charges or join into them. If a character within 3" of a unit, if the character successfully charges an enemy unit that is within charge range of the unit then they may charge the same enemy unit without needing to roll, they successfully charge. The unit must not of attempted to charge prior to this however to make use of this benefit. The same can be done for characters following units into combat as well with all the same restrictions applying to the character that applied to the unit (must be within charge range and cannot of attempted a charge prior). This rule is called "Heroic Charge"."

 

Before a question is asked about overwatch for this, it may not be obvious at first, but the heroic charge only applies when you get a successful charge with ether the Unit or the Character and thus would be done after overwatch is dealt with (so thus only the initial charging unit takes the hits. Works the same really since if one succeeded you wouldn't get to shoot the follow up anyway). Ofcourse the heroic charge is an extra I saw many others mentioned so I threw it in for the sake of argument and to be honest is thematically cool (leader steps forward and inspires the men forward. Could lead to cool rules for characters who have more powerful heroic charges or benefits for when they perform a heroic charge).

 

So now I ask for the response to this: Provide a section that is shorter than that, that will explain all the procedures for characters being able join and the like and do address any issues that may arise. For all intents, we are arguing for making characters not so inflated so thus brevity is the key. For my example, Heroic Charge and Heroic intervention, like in the book for the latter could be included in side boxes.

[Gentlemanloser]

Haven't I done that already? Sure I need to add back a sentence for Wound Allocation.

 

But if size is the issue I'm sure I could wordsmith it shorter if necessary.

 

 

 

 

Characters with a wound statistic of less than 10 and who do not have the vehicle keyword, who end the movement phase in coherency with a friendly unit that does not contain the character keyword and has a minimum unit size of more than 1, joins that unit (multiple units in coherency, player chooses which unit is joined). While joined to a unit the character loses the Character keyword, any Detachment bonuses they might have and cannot be individually targeted for shooting attacks unless by units with the sniper keyword.  Any wounds suffered by the combined unit are taken on the original unit first and not the Character.  Any joined Characters do not suffer the effects of any Moral tests the unit might take.  If that unit moves in the psychic or charge phase the joined character moves with them.  If any psychic powers are used on the unit any joined characters are also effected.  If the character ends any phase out of coherency, or the unit that has been joined is destroyed, they automatically leave the unit and regain the character keyword and any Deatchment bonuses they might have.

 

Anything missing there?  Dreads can't join Dreads.  I went for the weaker option of losing Chapter Tactics, while the unit keeps theirs.

 

Any other exceptions required, or niche units that have been missed that could skew things?

 

Is it clear enough?

Edited December 18, 2017 by Gentlemanloser

[Mileposter]

... And there has yet to be an adequate representation for why this should be a thing. I've seen one attempt: Because it feels sucky when the dice don't go your way.

 

... Okay. But isn't that true of anything in 40k?

 

The thread is failing to follow its own rules. The rules given state that why is to be included - so why is this rule needed? The rules given state to follow the bigger picture - why is the way charging currently works with characters unbalanced? The rules given state to include some math in anecdotal evidence - how has math failed our charging characters?

 

If the thread is to support discussion of 'Controversial Rules and Mechanics', where is the other side of the controversy?

[Schlitzaf]

I believe Pentharian, Gentlemen reason is disliking the fact that vehicles and monsters can block characters

[Gentlemanloser]

It's more than that.

 

It's the disconnect of the targeting rules. Of not being able to shoot a lone character in the open, because there's another squad on the other side of the enemy thats closer.

 

Or the inability to shoot a Chaplain dread as a venerable dread is closer, but tie ok to shoot the venerable dread.

 

There's issue with the character targeting rules that break immersion for some players.

 

And besides, why does there need to be a why? If we can have a workable joining rule that isn't pages long.

 

Then why not?

 

Charlo has given a reason behind charging. Is his not good enough?

Edited December 18, 2017 by Gentlemanloser

[Mileposter]

Why does there need to be a why? Because you're proposing changing game balance. "Because it doesn't feel good", which was Charlo's given reason, is not good enough. "Because I want it" is not good enough. "It breaks immersion" is not good enough. And because the initial post of the thread says that participation requires a why. Because the original post suggests a serious discussion and investigation of these topics - and to take it seriously, you need a why. The why is something that is important to be analyzed as well as the rule. That's one of the core tenets of actual game balancing.

 

If the discussion of the rules is intended to propose solutions to problems, part of the examination is required to be the problem it is solving. The thread demands to examine these points and then those points go unexamined. Without an even representation better than "I don't like this", it becomes a wishlisting thread at best and a whining one at worst.

 

I know there are some legitimate gripes in here. It's worth the examination. And as someone who's spent several years in game development and design I'm greatly interested in participating. But there's not a place for that discussion so far because it hasn't been approached evenly.

 

That's why these points:

 

The thread is failing to follow its own rules. The rules given state that why is to be included - so why is this rule needed? The rules given state to follow the bigger picture - why is the way charging currently works with characters unbalanced? The rules given state to include some math in anecdotal evidence - how has math failed our charging characters?

 

If the thread is to support discussion of 'Controversial Rules and Mechanics', where is the other side of the controversy?

Are so very important.

[Gentlemanloser]

Some players don't like the existing rules because they break immersion isn't a good enough reason?

 

I don't like the current rules also isn't good enough?

 

What do you want as a reason?

 

If you admit there are legitimate reasons, why do you need more examples?  Why don't you supply those legitimate gripes?

 

The whys have been provided, the thread isn't failing it's own rules.  You just don't like the why's that have been supplied...

Edited December 18, 2017 by Gentlemanloser

[Wargamer]

If you want immersion, go play a different game.

 

It's like the people who complain that in Blood Bowl you roll for interception before you roll to pass. That makes no sense from a realism perspective, but from a game perspective it makes perfect sense - it makes interception less punishing to the thrower and it streamlines the game.

 

So unless you can provide a solid argument that making the game more complex and time consuming, your argument falls flat.

[Gentlemanloser]

Wow, so desires of players to change the game mechanically to suit their desires is not to be discussed, isn't a 'solid' argument, and those players should just go play another game...

 

OK.

 

Wargamer, what are *you* adding to the thread?

[Brother Casman]

I think what Pentharian is getting at is that “Breaks immersion” is at its core a personal thing. Is immersion a required goal of the game? I don’t think it’s necessarily included in the rules...

[Gentlemanloser]

Isn't that personal preference a valid enough reason to suggest changes to game rules?  If it makes the game more enjoyable for that player, and breaks nothing else in the process, isn't that a good thing?

[Mileposter]

Some players don't like the existing rules because they break immersion isn't a good enough reason?

 

I don't like the current rules also isn't good enough?

Not good enough for the directions taken. These 'reasons' cannot be balanced around. Balance cannot be generated around what someone likes or doesn't. I don't like when my models take wounds, for example - but we can all see how absurd it would be for me to propose rules changes that keep my models from taking wounds, because Gulliman being able to die breaks my immersion?

 

What do you want as a reason?

 

If you admit there are legitimate reasons, why do you need more examples?  Why don't you supply those legitimate gripes?

Fair! It's not so much that I need more 'examples', but that they aren't being addressed here. It's true that I'm in the camp that thinks Characters and charging are just fine - but that's part of the reason for having a concrete workable problem to solve. You're able to bring those opposed around to your view with data.

"Characters are being taken in games less often for melee buffs." Would be a valid point of 'why', were it true.

"Characters being unable to charge with their melee counterparts is unbalancing the melee game." Would also be a valid 'why', were it to accompany some data.

"Melee characters have proven less effective than their ranged counterparts." Is another example, were you able to illustrate the issue.

 

I don't believe any of these statements are accurate, but if they were then they give a concrete problem to look at solving. Find one of those and you have common ground that everyone can work with.

 

The whys have been provided, the thread isn't failing it's own rules.  You just don't like the why's that have been supplied...

Forgive my persistence - but my opinion of the 'why' provided is irrelevant. One cannot help you solve the problem of "I don't like it" or "immersion" through game balance. Inevitably, what one likes, another will dislike. Personal preference is not a metric for game balance.

 

Now, please note, that's not to say that your personal preference or feelings about the state of things are invalid. They're not. Very valid. Simply not a basis for rules changes.

[Brother Casman]

Sure, GML, except your proposed change will break immersion for someone else, and they’ll be just as justified in undoing your change to go back to the old way. It’s better, I think, to do what GW’s doing and adjusting mechanics based on rules and rule interactions not working as intended. Now, I realize that we don’t have GW’s intent, so we’re operating with incomplete information, but still.

 

So, mechanically, what are your proposed changes fixing? What seems broken?

Edited December 18, 2017 by Brother Casman

[Wargamer]

The closest thing I can think of to this argument is that certain large and prominent characters can potentially hide in plain sight. Sure, that Hellhound rolling towards you will probably distract you from shooting some nameless Guard officer, but Abaddon the Despoiler is such a massive target of opportunity that it makes perfect sense armies would seek to kill him, big picture be damned.